EPTSleeper Cell Mafia II - Page 16
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
| ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
On January 26 2012 12:46 Navillus wrote: I agree with Radfield though I wish you hadn't mentioned the possibility of the inception agent seeing their messages, I agree that they probably would realize that but now they know for sure, and usually I say assume mafia is playing optimally but this is different because any noob scums aren't in communication to vet scums and so might have slipped up. Obviously we can't not talk about what mafia is likely to do at all though so basically I'm saying just be very careful with what you post about what we might have/do and they might have/do, and people who post a lot about that are very suspicious as that would be an easy way to transfer info. (Wiggles style) Basically, he mentions the one information he didn't want mafia to look at. Then he says to be very careful about what you post. On January 26 2012 14:09 Navillus wrote: I am... confused, you say you reread it and changed your mind, but the part that you're saying is good is... the plan, as in the exact part you were arguing against 3 minutes ago. And saying doesn't actually mean that it's not true, the way this reads to me is Rad came up with an objectively good plan for town, you went oh shit and tried to derail it, everyone said wait this is good for town wtf are you doing, and now you're backtracking because you know it's good and arguing against it will get you lynched. The thing is I don't see what you saw on reread that "changed your mind" you're just saying what you said was bad before is good now... ??? Vote: redFF He doesn't accept that a player may change his mind; one thing is a glaring contradiction, other thing is a player changing his mind. redFF didn't have a glaring contradiction. And then he says he didn't want to vote redFF previously because he was afraid of being called on OMGUS: On January 26 2012 14:11 Navillus wrote: Just saw your post, I didn't want to vote right after you voted/accused me because I thought (and still think) that you would have just called it an OMGUS, now it looks like you've decided to be mad at me for NOT voting for, and I'm sure somehow my voting at this exact moment specifically proves I'm scum too. In other words, you are redirecting. Which is terrible, considering a town player should never be afraid of something like that. He says he didn't want to be "redirected easily", but if he was sure redFF was scum he should actually receive the OMGUS call with open arms, and shove it down his throat. He is being TOO careful. He's also been gone for about 20 hours, which is odd considering how active he was during first 24 hours. AND I hate the way he writes. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25563 Posts
##Vote: Meapak_Ziphh | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25563 Posts
| ||
|
vaderseven
United States2556 Posts
Is it valid to say that lurking as scum has alot appeal bbecause it not only puts you under the radar of getting but also under the radar of getting night killed? The more I think about that idea the more I conclude that at least one scum will probably try something like that. tl;dr - Lurkers stop lurking now because it is 2x as scummy as a it is in a normal game and doing something acummy that gets you under the radar is way to valid of a scum tactic in this setup. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25563 Posts
Except instead we're gonna hang him | ||
|
vaderseven
United States2556 Posts
| ||
|
Jackal58
United States4264 Posts
On January 27 2012 23:31 Radfield wrote: The more I think about this Jackal, the more I think you're being deliberately obtuse. You've slowly been ramping up to this point(that I must be scum), yet with no reason to do so. You're stating that I'm am absolutely scum, when there is basically zero reason for you to think that. You are also deliberately refusing to adequately explain yourself, because that would show your entire point to be invalid. In what way am I being obtuse? In what way is assigning varying degrees of scumminess useful? In what way have I not adequately explained myself? You're scum. Die. | ||
|
Jackal58
United States4264 Posts
On January 28 2012 01:25 Blazinghand wrote: I legitimately spent some time not calling out Meapak just to see how long he'd lurk without being called out. It turns out that amount of time is "literally more than a day". He's going to come back and tell us how he was busy, he needs to catch up on the thread, etc, and then he's gonna try to half-ass some analysis out close enough to the deadline that it won't change anything then comfortably lodge himself into a wagon. Except instead we're gonna hang him I can live with this too. But Radfield is scum. | ||
|
GreYMisT
United States6738 Posts
Radfield (3): Meapak_Ziphh, Cwave, Jackal58 Navillus (2): RedFF, Zephridd RedFF (2) Bumatlarge, Navillus Cwave (1): GGQ Lanaia (1): Hesmyrr Meapak_Ziphh (1): BlazingHand | ||
|
iGrok
United States5142 Posts
| ||
|
Navillus
United States1188 Posts
@Zephirdd First I'm sorry that you have trouble reading paragraphs that take up more than 5 lines, you could have just asked nicely, I would have and will change that. Second, I mentioned that information because it was already in the thread, now I agree that they almost definitely would have realized it anyway but once it was in the thread there was literally 0 chance that a scum wouldn't know Also it would have made it unnecessarily confusing to talk about without specifically referencing what I meant. Third, I never said a player can't change his mind, I was simply skeptical that Red did a full 180 in about 2 minutes after pretty strongly arguing for one side, especially because his 180 post was along the lines of "oh this part of the plan actually is good" when that part had been what he was just arguing against. Either way I'm off Red for now, I think it's possible he did, and don't think what I have now is enough to say he's scum. Fourth I already explained not wanting to waste time/attention responding to the OMGUS and explained that I then realized that was a mistake and why. I changed my mind, that's allowed right? Also, please try not to vote for people because you dislike how they write, that's not actually a scumtell and frankly terrible town play. I don't think this makes you more likely scum, just unstrategic. | ||
|
Navillus
United States1188 Posts
| ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
I also voted you because I couldn't think of a better candidate, and I didn't want to widen the rad/cwave wagons. However, I didn't notice that so many lurkers were around(namely Lanaia, Meapak), and that lurking is actually way too good for a scum player here. So I'll go ahead and shot a vote on Lanaia until she actually provides good contribution. I'll vote her over Meapak because at least Meapak pointed out that Rad's strategy is/could be somehow bad for town. (I also have problems finding who to vote, when voting is oblig .-.) | ||
|
Navillus
United States1188 Posts
| ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
Radfield(3): Meapak_Ziphh, Cwave, Jackal58 Meapak_Ziphh(2): Blazinghand, Navillus Lanaia(2): Hesmyrr, Zephirdd redFF(1): bumatlarge Cwave(1): GGQ Navillus(1): redFF HAS NOT VOTED Radfield Mr. Wiggles vaderseven Refallen Lanaia | ||
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
Lanaia fits the lurker bill, but unfortunately I see a fair bit of similarity between this game and XLVIII where she was also town(and did very little early on). Meapak also fits the lurker bill, buts here's the thing. If Meapak is scum, he was doing one of a few things with his posts. A) He picked out a quick pro-town read on me, and tried to sabotage my cred or get me lynched(ballsy and unlikely). B) Picked out a scum read on me and tried to bus me to gain town cred(unlikely). C) Ignored my potential alignment and just went all out in an effort to build scum-hunting effort credentials(likely). Or alternatively he is town and saw what he thought was a player trying to communicate with his scum buddies(most likely). Right now a large amount of people fall into the questionable zone of medium-low activity/content, but it's hard to parse that group. At any rate, I like our pace and direction right now and I'm willing to vote Lanaia. On January 28 2012 01:49 Jackal58 wrote: In what way am I being obtuse? In what way is assigning varying degrees of scumminess useful? In what way have I not adequately explained myself? You're scum. Die. You're either being obtuse by refusing to explain to me why you think I am scum, or I suppose I am obtuse for failing to understand where you have laid out your problems. Assigning varying degrees of scumminess is ALWAYS useful. It happens every game, and I don't understand how you can object to it. Lets say I have 4 players I think are scum, obviously I don't think they are equally likely to be scum. They all have degrees of scumminess, and I'm going to indicate that when I post my reads. What are you even arguing here? Can someone else please explain to me what Jackal is objecting to, because I really don't see it(or understand it). | ||
|
vaderseven
United States2556 Posts
I would note that her post about cwave really rubs me wrong even in light of her meta. | ||
|
bumatlarge
United States4567 Posts
Nice try to everyone stuffing their vote on her, but she should not be the lynch. I'd definitely lynch radfield over her. I don't have a proper read on navillus or cwave, but I have no problem lynching them. Meapak also fits the lurker bill, buts here's the thing. If Meapak is scum, he was doing one of a few things with his posts. A) He picked out a quick pro-town read on me, and tried to sabotage my cred or get me lynched(ballsy and unlikely). B) Picked out a scum read on me and tried to bus me to gain town cred(unlikely). C) Ignored my potential alignment and just went all out in an effort to build scum-hunting effort credentials(likely). Or alternatively he is town and saw what he thought was a player trying to communicate with his scum buddies(most likely) And how is this not a direct contradiction of what you said not to do. You are essentially calling him town here. One strike too many. ##Vote: Radfield | ||
|
vaderseven
United States2556 Posts
On January 28 2012 03:39 Radfield wrote: Lynching lurkers is not a strat I normally agree with, but it seems quite a bit more viable(Day1) in this setup(given that we can't effectively trace mafia votes Day 1. And lurking as scum in theory makes for safety at night. Lurking is the 'most accepted' anti town move in so far as it goes unpunished more than other anti town moves. With all of that in mind, lurking is way scummier or at least way more anti town with this setup than it is normally. | ||
| ||
